Charles-Francois Natali <neolo...@free.fr> added the comment: > Patch looks mostly good. Why do you use ~PROT_WRITE instead of > PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC as in your example?
Because I'm not sure that PROT_EXEC is supported by all platforms. See http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/mmap.html : "The implementation will support at least the following values of prot: PROT_NONE, PROT_READ, PROT_WRITE, and the inclusive OR of PROT_READ and PROT_WRITE." If PROT_EXEC is defined but unsupported, it's likely to be defined as 0, so passing PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC will just pass PROT_READ (which is catched by the current version), whereas with ~PROT_WRITE we're sure that the PROT_WRITE bit won't be set. > (I'm unsure whether a POSIX implementation could refuse such a value) Me neither. I'd guess that the syscall just performs bitwise AND to check the bits that are set, but you never know :-) Maybe we could try this and see if a builbot complains ? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11391> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
